Approved by Birkal
After participating in a few CAPs, I think that the threat discussion is the weakest stage in the entire process. I think that one of the biggest issues is the general vagueness and lack of direction of this stage. Even the description on the CAP site (https://www.smogon.com/cap/process/events/threat_discussion) doesn't explain what the objective of the stage is, and everything seems to be left to the TL discretion. I do not think that the stage is broken, because it certainly served its function just fine on the last projects, but I think that there are many ways in which it could be improved. Here are some of my suggestions:
-Have a basic template of how the final threatlist should look. Here are last posts of the last five projects:
On CAP 20/21/22, the final threatlist is divided in two groups, Pokemon that we threaten, and Pokemon that should threaten us (On CAP 20, the list is further divided for each one of Calm mind and Dragon Dance, but the basic structure is still the same). However, on the last two CAPs, the lists use a clearly different format, making a clear divide between Pokemon that should counter or check us, and between things that we should pressure and things we should outright beat. Of course, I believe that for certain projects, the TL should be able to make certain changes to the basic template to better fit the concept, but here we can see a clear point where the structure of the list changed. Some might blame the Topic Leader, for not adhering to the previous template, but I think that this misses the point: there was never any template to begin with. To try to fix this, I propose that we decide on the format that the final threatlist should use. This should help standardize the process, and would serve as a clearer goal to this stage.
As for how should the template look, the two obvious models would be, on one hand, the way that most old threatlist work, divided simply between Pokemon that we should threaten, and ones that we should be threatened by. This has the advantage of being very straightforward, and allows greater flexibility on later stage. However, it is also pretty vague, and doesn't give any particular priority to anything inside each label, which doesn't tell us how important each one might be. On the other hand, the model used on the two last CAP Projects is divided between mons we beat, mons we pressure, mons that check us and mons that counter us. This is a much more precise method, and gives us a more in-depth analysis of how the current CAP should interact with a list of some the most relevant Pokemon in the tier. Despite that, the fact that here we have a fixed list of hard counters to us, can have a negative impact on later stages, because it places some very hard restrictions on them. Personally, I think our best choice here is to try to find a balance between these two models, as both have their own strengths and weaknesses. For this reason, I propose we divide the final threatlist into 3 basic sections: Switch in, Pressure, and Check/Counter. Here is a brief description of each one:
Switch in: Here would be the list of Pokemon on which we should be able to have a easy time switching in and then forcing them out, at least twice in a game. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that we should be able to come into any of their moves, just their most commonly used moves. This would mean that things in here would be our highest priority targets, and we should prioritize trying to beat them.
Pressure: This would be the place where we place mons that might threaten, but should not be able to switch in easily. This means that beating them is not a priority, but we should still actively try to avoid making them good checks to the current project.
Check/Counter: This would basically be the old "threatened by" list. This section is intentionally left more open than the others, because it lets us decide the exact role of each individual mon in here later, which gives us greater flexibility on later stages.
-Refer to Pokemon during the discussion and on the final threatlist by specific sets. For any Pokemon, their set is the main thing that determines what they're able to check. For example, if you are using SD Garchomp, then you are checked by Krilowatt, as it is faster and Ice Beam is a guaranteed OHKO. However, if you are using a Choice Scarf, the roles are reversed, and now Garchomp serves as a Krilowatt check, as it threatens it with Earthquake. This is true in countless cases, and certain mons might have completely different roles depending on their set. This can cause troubles in the discussion, as we might want to check/be checked by only one set, while we might want the opposite for other sets. For all this reasons, I think this will greatly improve the quality of the discussion, as we will be able to pinpoint how a project should interact with specific sets, and what kind of EV spread each member of our threatlist uses.
-Always assume the same entry hazards by default: The presence of Stealth Rock can significantly alter whether or not you can check/counter something. Therefore, I believe we should agree on the amount of hazard that we should assume when discussing threats. Personally, I think that this should be left at the discretion of the TL, as the popularity of hazards will inevitably fluctuate in the future, and they should be the ones to make this decision on each process. TL should also be able to dictate a particular set of hazards for a specific Pokemon (For example, CAP X should hard checked by mon A, even with Stealth Rock and 3 layers of Spikes on the field, while mon B only checks if there is no SR on its side).
-Have a standard definition for each part of the threatlist on the Opening Post, to make sure that everybody clearly understands what each term means. Here is the list of definitions I propose:
Full counter: Able to repeatedly switch into the opposing Pokemon against ALL sets and then beat it, even if the opponent predicts correctly every turn.
Hard counter: Able to repeatedly switch into the opposing Pokemon against most sets and then beat it, even if the opponent predicts correctly every turn. There are some sets capable of winning, but they are very specialized and generally outclassed.
Soft Counter: Able to repeatedly switch into the opposing Pokemon against some sets and then beat it, even if the opponent predicts correctly every turn. However other common sets might be able to beat this.
Hard Check: Able to repeatedly switch into most of the opposing Pokemon moves and then beat it, but can be beaten with the right prediction, or by wearing it down through the game.
Soft Check: Able to switch into the opposing mon at least twice in the game with a free switch, and then beat it.
Beat (1v1): Beat the opposing Pokémon after both mons switch on the same turn with 100% HP, no hazards and without a Focus Sash.
Of course, I imagine that others might have other ideas about how this discussion could be improved, so I would love to hear feedback on my suggestions and other possible ways on how to improve this stage.
After participating in a few CAPs, I think that the threat discussion is the weakest stage in the entire process. I think that one of the biggest issues is the general vagueness and lack of direction of this stage. Even the description on the CAP site (https://www.smogon.com/cap/process/events/threat_discussion) doesn't explain what the objective of the stage is, and everything seems to be left to the TL discretion. I do not think that the stage is broken, because it certainly served its function just fine on the last projects, but I think that there are many ways in which it could be improved. Here are some of my suggestions:
-Have a basic template of how the final threatlist should look. Here are last posts of the last five projects:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-20-part-3-threats-discussion.3533783/#post-6142444
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-21-part-3-threats-discussion.3551692/page-3#post-6466069
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-22-part-3-threats-discussion.3576526/page-3#post-6895593
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-23-part-3-threats-discussion.3613075/page-3#post-7494429
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-24-part-3-threats-discussion.3630109/page-3#post-7720095
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-21-part-3-threats-discussion.3551692/page-3#post-6466069
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-22-part-3-threats-discussion.3576526/page-3#post-6895593
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-23-part-3-threats-discussion.3613075/page-3#post-7494429
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-24-part-3-threats-discussion.3630109/page-3#post-7720095
As for how should the template look, the two obvious models would be, on one hand, the way that most old threatlist work, divided simply between Pokemon that we should threaten, and ones that we should be threatened by. This has the advantage of being very straightforward, and allows greater flexibility on later stage. However, it is also pretty vague, and doesn't give any particular priority to anything inside each label, which doesn't tell us how important each one might be. On the other hand, the model used on the two last CAP Projects is divided between mons we beat, mons we pressure, mons that check us and mons that counter us. This is a much more precise method, and gives us a more in-depth analysis of how the current CAP should interact with a list of some the most relevant Pokemon in the tier. Despite that, the fact that here we have a fixed list of hard counters to us, can have a negative impact on later stages, because it places some very hard restrictions on them. Personally, I think our best choice here is to try to find a balance between these two models, as both have their own strengths and weaknesses. For this reason, I propose we divide the final threatlist into 3 basic sections: Switch in, Pressure, and Check/Counter. Here is a brief description of each one:
Switch in: Here would be the list of Pokemon on which we should be able to have a easy time switching in and then forcing them out, at least twice in a game. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that we should be able to come into any of their moves, just their most commonly used moves. This would mean that things in here would be our highest priority targets, and we should prioritize trying to beat them.
Pressure: This would be the place where we place mons that might threaten, but should not be able to switch in easily. This means that beating them is not a priority, but we should still actively try to avoid making them good checks to the current project.
Check/Counter: This would basically be the old "threatened by" list. This section is intentionally left more open than the others, because it lets us decide the exact role of each individual mon in here later, which gives us greater flexibility on later stages.
-Refer to Pokemon during the discussion and on the final threatlist by specific sets. For any Pokemon, their set is the main thing that determines what they're able to check. For example, if you are using SD Garchomp, then you are checked by Krilowatt, as it is faster and Ice Beam is a guaranteed OHKO. However, if you are using a Choice Scarf, the roles are reversed, and now Garchomp serves as a Krilowatt check, as it threatens it with Earthquake. This is true in countless cases, and certain mons might have completely different roles depending on their set. This can cause troubles in the discussion, as we might want to check/be checked by only one set, while we might want the opposite for other sets. For all this reasons, I think this will greatly improve the quality of the discussion, as we will be able to pinpoint how a project should interact with specific sets, and what kind of EV spread each member of our threatlist uses.
-Always assume the same entry hazards by default: The presence of Stealth Rock can significantly alter whether or not you can check/counter something. Therefore, I believe we should agree on the amount of hazard that we should assume when discussing threats. Personally, I think that this should be left at the discretion of the TL, as the popularity of hazards will inevitably fluctuate in the future, and they should be the ones to make this decision on each process. TL should also be able to dictate a particular set of hazards for a specific Pokemon (For example, CAP X should hard checked by mon A, even with Stealth Rock and 3 layers of Spikes on the field, while mon B only checks if there is no SR on its side).
-Have a standard definition for each part of the threatlist on the Opening Post, to make sure that everybody clearly understands what each term means. Here is the list of definitions I propose:
Full counter: Able to repeatedly switch into the opposing Pokemon against ALL sets and then beat it, even if the opponent predicts correctly every turn.
Hard counter: Able to repeatedly switch into the opposing Pokemon against most sets and then beat it, even if the opponent predicts correctly every turn. There are some sets capable of winning, but they are very specialized and generally outclassed.
Soft Counter: Able to repeatedly switch into the opposing Pokemon against some sets and then beat it, even if the opponent predicts correctly every turn. However other common sets might be able to beat this.
Hard Check: Able to repeatedly switch into most of the opposing Pokemon moves and then beat it, but can be beaten with the right prediction, or by wearing it down through the game.
Soft Check: Able to switch into the opposing mon at least twice in the game with a free switch, and then beat it.
Beat (1v1): Beat the opposing Pokémon after both mons switch on the same turn with 100% HP, no hazards and without a Focus Sash.
Of course, I imagine that others might have other ideas about how this discussion could be improved, so I would love to hear feedback on my suggestions and other possible ways on how to improve this stage.
Last edited: